• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Slavery in the bible

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
With names like Asher or Menachem, the slaves sound a bit Jewish
and does support the Exodus epoch
Hebrews in Egypt before the Exodus? Evidence from Papyrus Brooklyn | APXAIOC

quote
A section of Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 contains a list of 95 servants, many of whom are specified as "Asiatic" or coming from western Asia (i.e. Canaan). The servants with foreign names are given Egyptian names, just as Joseph was when he was a household servant under Potiphar (Genesis 41:45). The majority of the names are feminine because domestic servants were typically female, while the male servants often worked in construction or agricultural tasks. Approximately 30 of the servants have names identified as from the Semitic language family (Hebrew is a Semitic language), but even more relevant to the Exodus story is that several of these servants, up to ten, actually have specifically Hebrew names. The Hebrew names found on the list include: Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14); Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13); Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to the Exodus (Exodus 1:15); ‘Aqoba, a name appearing to be a feminine form of Jacob or Yaqob, the name of the patriarch (Genesis 25:26); ‘Ayyabum, the name of the patriarch Job or Ayob (Job 1:1); Sekera, which is a feminine name either similar to Issakar, a name of one of the sons of Jacob, or the feminine form of it (Genesis 30:18); Dawidi-huat a compound name utilizing the name David and meaning “my beloved is he” (1 Samuel 16:13); Esebtw, a name derived from the Hebrew word eseb meaning “herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2); Hayah-wr another compound name composed of Hayah or Eve and meaning “bright life” (Genesis 3:20); and finally the name Hy’b’rw, which appears to be an Egyptian transcription of Hebrew (Genesis 39:14). Thus, this list is a clear attestation of Hebrew people living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, and it is an essential piece of evidence in the argument for an historical Exodus.
unquote
So what?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
With names like Asher or Menachem, the slaves sound a bit Jewish
and does support the Exodus epoch
Hebrews in Egypt before the Exodus? Evidence from Papyrus Brooklyn | APXAIOC

quote
A section of Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 contains a list of 95 servants, many of whom are specified as "Asiatic" or coming from western Asia (i.e. Canaan). The servants with foreign names are given Egyptian names, just as Joseph was when he was a household servant under Potiphar (Genesis 41:45). The majority of the names are feminine because domestic servants were typically female, while the male servants often worked in construction or agricultural tasks. Approximately 30 of the servants have names identified as from the Semitic language family (Hebrew is a Semitic language), but even more relevant to the Exodus story is that several of these servants, up to ten, actually have specifically Hebrew names. The Hebrew names found on the list include: Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14); Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13); Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to the Exodus (Exodus 1:15); ‘Aqoba, a name appearing to be a feminine form of Jacob or Yaqob, the name of the patriarch (Genesis 25:26); ‘Ayyabum, the name of the patriarch Job or Ayob (Job 1:1); Sekera, which is a feminine name either similar to Issakar, a name of one of the sons of Jacob, or the feminine form of it (Genesis 30:18); Dawidi-huat a compound name utilizing the name David and meaning “my beloved is he” (1 Samuel 16:13); Esebtw, a name derived from the Hebrew word eseb meaning “herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2); Hayah-wr another compound name composed of Hayah or Eve and meaning “bright life” (Genesis 3:20); and finally the name Hy’b’rw, which appears to be an Egyptian transcription of Hebrew (Genesis 39:14). Thus, this list is a clear attestation of Hebrew people living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, and it is an essential piece of evidence in the argument for an historical Exodus.
unquote

What dates are associated with the papyrus?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
It's there. We all know its there. I'd like to get into it, listing the arguments I've heard and my refutations of each. I'd welcome people to point out flaws in ny understanding or refutations, and equally as interested to hear new arguments about it.

1: It isn't slavery, it's indetured servitude.

For your hebrew slaves, sure. That rule didnt apply to the slaves taken from other nations, who were bought and sold as property.

2: It's an old testament thing, the new testament releases christians from the old ways

Paul said "slaves, obey your masters, even the cruel ones." It's very much a new testament thing, too.

3: every 50 years they had to let them go

So? 50 minutes of slavery is immoral.

4: In the context of the time there was nothing wrong with it

There're three ways to come at this. The first is we're not in their time, so it's still wrong when preached in our time as the "truth". However, that may be a strawman argument. Another attack could be that if god does offer objective morality, it stands to reason that if it is immoral now, it was immoral then but they got it wrong. My preferred argument is that if you can write off that part of the bible due to historical context, then you can do the same with the notion if god (e.g. it was the only way they could explain the world they lived in and control their people)

5: god is the law on morality, so slavery is moral even if we choose not to accept it.

In that case, so is executing your wife for wearing two types of fabric. If you want to claim that slavery is moral because god said so, you'd be forced to accept every single thing in the bible as your only moral guideline. If you want to try and get me to accept that, you have to first prove that any god exists, then prove that it is the christian god.

Again, more than happy to hear where my reasoning is flawed, please explain though so I can correct it.

Also, I'm not interested in being preached at, so if you're thinking of doing that please don't (especially if you're gonna say that point 5 is correct. you can guarantee I'll burst a vessel trying to ignore those comments)
I don't see what the problem is here. Nobody claims either the Jews or the early Christians, 2000 years, ago led perfect moral lives, nor does anyone claim that the social structures of the time were the moral equal of what we have in many modern societies. Slavery is just one example. You could equally well pick on the role of women.

People cannot help being of their time: what they see as moral and immoral will be shaped by that. The bible was written by people, after all, at a certain time in history.

So what's the issue?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The Jews were just Canaanites and they were never slaves.
Once a year they say that they were personally slaves in Egypt. Each parent tells it to their kids "We were slaves in Egypt, but we were brought out." and to everyone around in the household, and if there are slaves those slaves are all present. They don't say "Our ancestors were slaves." They say "We were slaves." They call this the Pesach festival. It is not optional and is part of their ethnic history going back three or more thousand years. This undermines slavery, because the first thing you do if you want to generationaly enslave someone is you make them think you are different from them and better that they are morally inferior or genetically inferior. You can't do that if you are teaching them that that you were a slave and that genetics don't matter.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Once a year they say that they were personally slaves in Egypt. Each parent tells it to their kids "We were slaves in Egypt, but we were brought out." and to everyone around in the household, and if there are slaves those slaves are all present. They don't say "Our ancestors were slaves." They say "We were slaves." They call this the Pesach festival. It is not optional and is part of their ethnic history going back three or more thousand years. This undermines slavery, because the first thing you do if you want to generationaly enslave someone is you make them think you are different from them and better that they are morally inferior or genetically inferior. You can't do that if you are teaching them that that you were a slave and that genetics don't matter.

I suppose.

John 8:33 33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I suppose.

John 8:33 33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"
That adds in nicely, although it is not Hebrew and is written in AD. How can they be set free if they aren't slaves? How can they be slaves if they are actually free? How can it be the body of Christ if its bread, and how can it be his blood if its wine? In John 8:35 he highlights a previous point: "Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever." If John knows what he is talking about he reveals that when the man has his ear pierced to the doorpost he becomes a son and is no longer a slave, and the one who leaves has been freed. One walks away and one is naturalized.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You conveniently omit the fact it was Christian abolitionist who ended the slave trade in America.
And you conveniently omit that those who utilized The Bible to advocate FOR slavery during that same time-frame were also Christian. And, honestly, they had plenty of ammunition to take into the argument. The Bible blatantly supports/condones slavery.

And this is where there is an egregious problem. Secularly minded individuals who wanted to argue for keeping slavery had to come up with secular justifications as to why it is acceptable to own another human being - of which there are basically none outside of appealing to greed and apathy. But religious people who want to argue that we should keep slavery have The Bible that they can point to, and basically use it to insist that God is on their side in the argument. That's one of the biggest dangers of religion in general. Cosmic-level justification of atrocity.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I suppose.

John 8:33 33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"
I am confused. Didn't you discourage using the book of John as authoritative? Now you're using it as evidence to support your claim?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
That adds in nicely, although it is not Hebrew and is written in AD. How can they be set free if they aren't slaves? How can they be slaves if they are actually free? How can it be the body of Christ if its bread, and how can it be his blood if its wine?

In John 8:35 he highlights a previous point: "Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever." If John knows what he is talking about he reveals that when the man has his ear pierced to the doorpost he becomes a son and is no longer a slave, and the one who leaves has been freed. One walks away and one is naturalized.

It says NEVER been slaves.

In the old days slaves in Arabia had their ears pierced.. Not the lobe.. the ear.
 

sooda

Veteran Member

Basically, everyone in the know admits that what is written in the Bible and Torah simply didn’t happen, not at all, not even the non-supernatural, core plot…

So next time you hear someone tell you the Bible is infallible (or anything about Passover whatsoever) send them one of these links:

The Jews Were Never Slaves in Egypt – Religious Criticism
 

sooda

Veteran Member

I think they had an agenda.. I've thought so for a long time. There are massive doubts that there ever was a united kingdom.

Grounds for disbelief

"I don't believe that there was a department for the invention of stories in Jerusalem.

There were folktales that were handed down from generation to generation, local traditions and legends, and they were the basis for the creation of the biblical narrative. Maybe there really was no conquest, and maybe there were vague memories of local events.

In any case, the scribes in the period of Josiah collected these materials and forged them into a coherent story containing a message it was important for them to get across. They didn't actually care whether there ever was such a person as Joshua.

Jericho and the area of Bethel, and the Shefelah and the Galilee were on the agenda of Judah.

They never actually conquered many of these regions. `This was once ours,' they said, `as in the time of Joshua, and all we are doing is putting history back in its track, correcting the course of history and on this occasion renewing the glorious monarchy of David, which was the first to rule these territories.'"
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
It says NEVER been slaves.

In the old days slaves in Arabia had their ears pierced.. Not the lobe.. the ear.

So next time you hear someone tell you the Bible is infallible
I am not arguing for an infallible Bible just responding to the OP. They're speaking strictly about what they read in Hebrew laws, and I'm meeting them in that world. Nobody is really trying to shore up historicity, but we are discussing whether slavery is encouraged or discouraged. Obviously Christians, Muslims and Jews are implicated by recent centuries in which slavery has been a big business. The OP blames this on the Bible and on the concept of God, and I see some misconceptions in the OP argument.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Are you saying that the story of the conquest of the land is a complete fiction?

"It is a story which, as it is presented in the Bible, definitely never happened. Archaeology shows that it has no historical grounds.

Many of the sites that are cited in the story of the conquest were not even inhabited in the relevant period, so there was nothing to conquer, there were only hills and rocks.

Jericho was not fortified and had no walls, and it's doubtful that there was a settlement there at the time.

Therefore, in the case of the story of the conquest of Arad, for instance, some scholars said that the war was fought against the forces of one Bedouin sheikh.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I am not arguing for an infallible Bible just responding to the OP.

They're speaking strictly about what they read in Hebrew laws, and I'm meeting them in that world. Nobody is really trying to shore up historicity, but we are discussing whether slavery is encouraged or discouraged.

Obviously Christians, Muslims and Jews are implicated by recent centuries in which slavery has been a big business. The OP blames this on the Bible and on the concept of God, and I see some misconceptions in the OP argument.

Nah.. Slavery existed long before there were ever any Hebrew scriptures.


Then why was it written?

"For reasons of ideology. Because the authors of the Bible, people from Judah at the end of the seventh century BCE, in the period of King Josiah, had a long score to settle with the northern kingdom, with its splendor and richness.

They despised the northerners and had not forgotten their dominance in forging the Israelite experience, in the competition for the sites of ritual.

Contrary to what is usually thought, the Israelites did not go to pray in Jerusalem. They had a temple in Samaria (today's Sebastia) and at Beit El (Bethel).

In our book we tried to show that as long as Israel was there, Judah was small and frightened, militarily and internationally. Judah and Jerusalem were on the fringes.

A small tribe. There was nothing there. A small temple and that's all."

And the kingdom of Israel?

"The archaeological findings show that Israel was a large, prosperous state, and was the main story until its destruction in the eighth century.

Its geographic location was excellent, on the coast, near Phoenicia, Assyria and Syria. It had a diverse demographic composition: foreign residents and workers, Canaanites, Phoenicians; there was an Aramean population in the Jordan Valley, and there were mixed marriages.

It was only 150 years after Israel's destruction that Judah rose to greatness, becoming self-aware and developing the monotheistic approach: one state, one God, one capital, one temple, one king."

Grounds for disbelief
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I am not arguing for an infallible Bible just responding to the OP. They're speaking strictly about what they read in Hebrew laws, and I'm meeting them in that world. Nobody is really trying to shore up historicity, but we are discussing whether slavery is encouraged or discouraged. Obviously Christians, Muslims and Jews are implicated by recent centuries in which slavery has been a big business. The OP blames this on the Bible and on the concept of God, and I see some misconceptions in the OP argument.
Is that what the OP is arguing? I thought it was just that there was slavery practised by Jews and Christians in history.

Like Sooda, I cannot see how anyone could get the idea that slavery is an idea originating in the bible, and I don't see that in the way the OP is written.
 
Top